Pages

If there’s one thing about the drug industry backed vaccine movement CHS has learned over the last several years, it’s that it’s almost completely immune to evidence, science, and reason.

No matter how much evidence is arrayed against it, there are those among its spokespeople who always find a way to spin, distort, or misrepresent the evidence to combat it and not have to give up the concept that vaccines don’t cause autism. “Its a mystery” but bizarrely the one thing they are are sure of “its not vaccines“, even when this has been confirmed in the past by leading health officials and agencies through gritted teeth when publicly embarrassed by media attention:Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines.

Not that this is any news to readers of this blog, but it bears repeating often. It also bears repeating and emphasizing examples of just the sort of disingenuous and even outright deceptive techniques used by promoters of vaccine pseudoscience to sow fear and doubt among parents. These arguments may seem persuasive to those who have little knowledge about science or epidemiology. Sometimes they even seemed somewhat persuasive to us; that is, at least until we actually took the time to look into them.

One example of such a myth is the claim that “vaccines save millions of lives” also sometimes going under the claim that “vaccines are safe and effective.” Now this is something health officials and health departments started, with their shroud-waving tactics threatening parents their children would die without vaccines. But what has happened instead is children develop autistic conditions in their millions with the amazing figure of around 1 family in every 25 in the USA with an affected child. That is vastly higher than pretty much anything else put together including the diseases the vaccines are alleged to protect against.

These people ignore completely and disparage evidence like that on sites which have large sets of graphs showing that the death rates of several vaccine-preventable diseases, including whooping cough, diptheria, measles, and polio were falling before the vaccines for each disease were introduced. Pretending to be scientific the vaccine movement disparage and criticise articles having quotes like the one from Andrew Weil in his book Health and Healing:

Scientific medicine has taken credit it does not deserve for some advances in health. Most people believe that victory over the infectious diseases of the last century came with the invention of immunisations. In fact, cholera, typhoid, tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough, etc, were in decline before vaccines for them became available – the result of better methods of sanitation, sewage disposal, and distribution of food and water.

A well-known US stand-up comedian, television host, political commentator, satirist, author, and actor, Bill Maher has said similar things about vaccines. The vaccine movement complain that “vaccines didn’t save us” is a gambit and has become a staple of vaccine safety websites. They complain vehemently when for example, people they describe as “ignorant bloggers” write:

The mythology surrounding vaccines is still pervasive, the majority of the population still believes, in faith like fashion, that vaccines are the first line of defense against disease. The true story is that nutrition and psychological/emotional health are the first line of defense against disease.

Vaccines are a concoction of chemical adjuvants and preservatives coupled with virus fragments and have clearly been implicated in the astounding rise in neurological disorders around the world, yet the ‘popular’ media has embedded itself as a spokesperson for the pharmaceutical cartel and simply does not report in any responsible way the real situation.

Gorski and the vaccine movement call it the “toxins” gambit. At risk of exposure for absolute intellectual dishonesty, they are forced to concede that of course, it is true that better sanitation is a good thing. They concede it has decreased the rate of transmission of some diseases. Sanitation can do this, with many infectious diseases being transmitted person-to-person through the air from aerosolized drops of saliva from coughs and sneezes or from being deposited on objects that people touch frequently, like doorknobs and suchlike.

And who is the main crank spreading the claim it is a lie? None other than the internet’s crankiest of medical crank doctor bloggers, Dr David Gorski over at Science Blogs dot com and as ORAC on his “Respectful Insolence” blog. He originally directed his comments to another site’s page entitled Proof That Vaccines Didn’t Save Us, claiming it’s “one of the most breathtakingly spectacularly intellectually dishonest bits of anti-vaccine propaganda” that he’s ever seen.

Well of course for Dr David Gorski, he almost always seems to say that or something like it. No matter what he previously commented on, the one he comments on next is the “most“, its “breathtakingly“, or “spectacularly” intellectually dishonest, pretty much no matter what he writes about.

The formula Gorski uses in his inane prattling is lapped up by his devoted followers, who like small dogs around his ankles jump up and down yapping for attention in subservient comments on his posts.

We say this not because Gorski uses a common distortion, but rather because he ups the ante every time with his primeval urges to make generous use of hyperbole, adding them with abandon to his disparaging writings.

Gorski’s distortions are hidden in plain sight, too, which is why he should have props for sheer chutzpah.

Actually, we have to give Gorski some backhanded kudos for how he always manages to devise some disparagement to represent the classic vaccine movement lies. This he combines with some very clever cherry picking. We won’t take them all on in this post. Maybe we’ll take some of them on in a future post. In the meantime, what we will do is to take on some main ones because they represent a common vaccine movement theme against sites with graphs very similar to the one found in posts like this.

In fact, let’s look at Gorski’s attack on the late Ian Sinclair’s website. He tells you to notice that there are six graphs, four of which are for vaccine-preventable diseases for which widespread vaccination was undertaken, two for which it was not. He will then say all of them show decreasing death rates from various diseases. And he will exclaim “Wow! It seems like slam dunk evidence, doesn’t it? Vaccines didn’t save us! After all, death rates were declining years before the vaccine, and they were declining for the diseases that didn’t even need a vaccine!“

So having taken the main proposition which any sensible person would, Gorski then goes about trying to show you how deceitful, and cunning and manipulative are your own eyes. He writes to persuade you to conclude from what is plain from decades and often a century or two of vaccination statistics, that you are wrong. You cannot, nay, you must not believe it.

Crazily, these kinds of graphs have only been brought into play because Gorski and people like Gorski have been frightening parents for a good century or two that their children will die and vaccines will save them from that. So he and others are engaged in trying to move the goalposts to clear up the mess they made with what in other circumstances Gorski might describe as their own “most breathtakingly spectacularly intellectually dishonest bits of vaccine propaganda that” Gorski “has ever seen“. [Don’t ya love it!]

Death rates.

This is how he follows on with a deceptively simple: “Here’s the problem.” Wow, David will say and he has in fact gone on to say: “It’s not surprising that death rates were declining before introduction of the vaccines. Medicine was improving.” Of course you will not realise that the data goes back two hundred years because David does not tell you, and that is way before socialised medicine ever came on the scene and way before the vast majority of working people could afford it [and believe us, a large proportion in the USA, long without socialised medicine, still cannot]. And yet the steady dramatic falls in disease mortality continued.

Now here is the real deceit. Gorski never once mentions “attenuation“, which is well-known in medicine and it is the steady decline in severity of diseases over time, as shown by all these graphs. His claim is to completely pretend natural attenuation of diseases does not exist and that it is all about “medicine improving“.

Now would you agree that is or is not intellectual dishonesty? Do you think it is right for a medical professional, a trained medical doctor, to abuse medical knowledge to make a claim a competent medical expert simply should not make?

David goes on:

More importantly, supportive care was improving. For example, take the case of polio. Before the introduction of the iron lung and its widespread use, for example, if a polio patient developed paralysis of the respiratory muscles, he would almost certainly die. The iron lung allowed such patients to live. Some even survived in an iron lung for decades.”

Well, you will think, that is pretty convincing. Everyone has heard of polio and iron lungs. But what David fails to tell you is that was for a short period around the 1950s and that he has completely airbrushed out the prior 150 years. He ignores the 1850s or the 1900s when large parts of western economies had working people living tightly packed in slums without adequate sanitation, nutrition or clean water, ripe for the spread of infectious diseases.

Have you seen the film “Angela’s ashes“? If not, watch it and you will soon get some idea about how bad slums and living conditions were. And that is not showing the worst either. But you will realise what misleading garbage is written on blatant propaganda attack sites like Science Blogs dot com by Gorski and his buddies.

Gorski fails to acknowledge or even accept [despite mountains of historical evidence outweighing his own cherry-picked bias] that as living conditions improved deaths from disease dropped dramatically before medicine even had much of a chance to play even a small role.

In the UK the National Health Service only came into existence in 1948. Before then ordinary working people got by without Gorski’s alleged “supportive care”. His ridiculous claim it was “improving” is also pointless save to deceive. When you haven’t got “it” in the first place, improvements in “it” are just as worthless. But Gorski ploughs on having sucked the gullible into his scribbled rants.

But so as not to lose you and any credibility completely Gorski concedes “No doubt improved nutrition also played a role as well.” But with that tiny concession buried in thousands of Gorski’s inanities he rapidly moves on: “However, if you want to get an idea of the impact of vaccines on infectious disease, take a look at this graph from the CDC of measles incidence, not death rates“:

“Now here’s the problem” as Gorski would say. [In fact he won’t and he did not for this part, so we need to]. First, he cherry picks starting in 1950. That bizarrely leaves out the massive decline over the prior 150 years. So no: 1) the vaccine was certainly not responsible for the massive decline in mortality and 2) that decline was still continuing after the vaccines were introduced and 3) it took place before “improved” medicine was commonly available to many [but still not all] in the West.

But Dr David Gorski leaves out even more. So if you have not realised before, let’s help you now. What else has Dr Gorski left out? Notice the graph seems to show measles cases dramatically falling? What you may not have noticed is that he has palmed the card and dealt you a crooked hand from the deck of cards he has hidden under the table.

“Now here’s the problem“. Without telling you, without batting an eyelid and likely without you noticing at all he flips to a graph of measles cases and not deaths to change the game completely. So in one move, a “sleight of hand” just like a three-card trickster who cheats you of your money, he has changed the entire proposition from saving us all from death to saving us from getting what might often be a mild dose of measles, [with no risk of 1 in 25 families having a child with autism as a result of vaccination as US leading health officials have admitted]. And he has done this without telling you, without batting an eyelid and likely without you noticing at all. He just flips to a graph of measles cases and not deaths. It is not the same argument and is not comparable. But you probably did not notice, but David certainly did.

When Gorski’s graph shows a fall in cases, it is not showing a fall in cases. It is showing a fall in the numbers of diagnoses of measles which have been reported.

When doctors say they are diagnosing what they really mean is they are guessing pretty much all the time.

The problem with statistics on cases and not deaths is they depend upon lots of doctors’ guesses. Doctors’ guesses also follow fads, fashions and trends. And Gorski also fails to point out that symptoms are not like those in textbooks. Some diseases have symptoms which look a lot like other diseases. Some patients will have some but not all symptoms. Some symptoms are milder in some patients than others. So a diagnosis a patient has one disease and not another is often a guess. And it is often wrong.

What Gorski does not tell you is the practice of medicine is not science. In fact he will tell you he “follows the science“. He seems such a zealot he would probably prefer to throw himself under a train before admitting medical practice is not a science.

When doctors believe there could be a measles epidemic they can diagnose 73 out of 74 patients as having measles when they don’t have measles. That is a real figure obtained from official data. You can find details here [at the end of the “Introduction” and before the “Contents”].

This also works in reverse. When doctors have information a child has been vaccinated they will tend to rule out the vaccinated disease as a possibility and guess [diagnose] a different disease. That is what the educated guessing process doctors call “diagnosis” is all about.

So when there are real measles cases, and doctors think the symptoms they see are not likely to be measles, they don’t diagnose measles.

So you can be sure that in the USA from the moment the first vaccine was licensed in 1963, the hype would have already started. Thus, on the one hand the graph Gorski presented you has figures for diagnoses [guesses] showing a dramatic decline of measles cases from the very moment the vaccine was first licensed in the USA. And on the other hand the moment doctors think it cannot be measles, they stop diagnosing measles and guess something else instead. So when there are real measles cases they will not be diagnosed.

So Gorski’s graph is totally misleading. But glossing over it all he goes on to argue by analogy claiming “Similar results were seen most recently from several other vaccines, including the Haemophilus influenza type B vaccine, as the CDC points out:

Hib vaccine is another good example, because Hib disease was prevalent until just a few years ago, when conjugate vaccines that can be used for infants were finally developed. (The polysaccharide vaccine previously available could not be used for infants, in whom most cases of the disease were occurring.) Since sanitation is not better now than it was in 1990, it is hard to attribute the virtual disappearance of Haemophilus influenzae disease in children in recent years (from an estimated 20,000 cases a year to 1,419 cases in 1993, and dropping) to anything other than the vaccine.”

And then you might ask, what is wrong with that? Again, plenty. The clue is in the word “estimated” in “the virtual disappearance of Haemophilus influenzae disease in children in recent years (from an estimated 20,000 cases a year to 1,419 cases in 1993“?

To put it bluntly, one too many a health official including one too many in the US CDC make up grossly exaggerated estimates to make it look like they are doing their job. Paying their mortgage depends on it. So on the one hand they want to make it look like disease is everywhere and on the other that they are controlling and fixing the problem.

The CDC was officially castigated by the US Senate in an official report “CDC Off Center” as an agency which “cannot demonstrate it is controlling disease“ but which was managing to spend US$11 billion in tax dollars every year not doing what even its name says it is supposed to – Center for Disease Control.

Flu death estimates are a classic example. The US CDC claims there are an estimated 36,000 annual flu deaths so they can promote flu vaccines and prove later how successful they have been. Their problem is the UK were doing the same thing, but got caught and the Chief Medical Officer had to “fess up”. You can read the details here. Flu deaths in the UK averaged no more than 33 annually despite Department of Health claims estimating 12,000 people die annually: 360 times higher than actual deaths. If a plane fell out of the sky over the UK, the way the Department of Health calculated flu deaths, these would have been included in their flu deaths figure. Read it for yourself and see here.

Now, do you think Dr David Gorski is being intellectually honest?

Gorski’s graph claims a fall in measles cases from the moment the first measles vaccine was licensed in 1963. The widespread use of measles vaccine in the US in a mass public vaccination programme started in 1967 which was nearly 5 years later. And the early vaccines were withdrawn because they were ineffective or caused high rates of adverse reactions. The 1963 licensed inactivated (“killed”) vaccine was withdrawn in 1967 because it did not protect against measles virus infection – it just did not work but it took nearly 5 years to find out. Additionally, it was not until 1968 that what was claimed a more effective safer vaccine was introduced. This was the attenuated strain vaccine (Edmonston-Enders). These further attenuated vaccines caused fewer reactions than the original Edmonston B vaccine. The 1963 licensed live attenuated vaccine (Edmonston B strain) was withdrawn in 1975 because of a high frequency of adverse reactions. A further attenuated vaccine (Schwarz) was first introduced in 1965 but is also no longer used: Measles Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases The Pink Book: Course Textbook – 12th Edition Second Printing (May 2012).

As you can see, the US authorities kept a useless vaccine in use for 5 years seemingly without realising it. They kept a harmful vaccine in use for at least 10 years before replacing it. So this gives you an idea of how difficult it is for parents to prove a vaccine is useless or one harmed their child when the US CDC pretends for 10 years a vaccine they later withdrew as dangerous is OK to give US kids. And it also tells you, you cannot trust government and you cannot trust health officials.

And you may also not realise it but these were dangerous, unethical and illegal mass experiments on children, US children, directed by health officials of what is now the US Centers for Disease Control. And the CDC is still doing illegal and dangerous experiments on US children with vaccines, but telling the public and media the vaccines are safe and effective. Nothing has changed. Has the US CDC ever used any of its annual US$11 billion budget in developing an effective treatment for measles? Nope. There is no effective treatment. The CDC is a one trick pony. And if they did develop an effective treatment like a measles pill, and a pill for other diseases, they might be out of a job.

Does Dr David Gorski warn you? Nope. He instead does the opposite with misinformation put out in a distasteful manner on his blogs. [And he is supposed to be a professional medical doctor with high ethical standards, just like the CDC’s health officials.]

So you can see how Gorski simply laps up information he gets off the internet from unreliable and dangerous websites like that operated by the US Centers for Disease Control without exercising any critical faculties over dangerous and false health information given out by US health officials which ends up with US kids getting harmed [and possibly killed]. It is typical of the genre. But he will attack and disparage others from the relative safety of his own blogs and he does so routinely. Go over to his blogs and read for yourself. Make your own mind up whether Dr Gorski is fair and open minded or is he something else? Ask yourself are his blog posts fair and balanced or bullying and harassing those whose legitimate views he wants to censor from common knowledge in favour of his drug industry supporting version of the “truth“. Overall ask yourself is he and Science Blogs dot com a source to be trusted?

Polio is another because not only are cases unlikely to be reported but cases not involving any symptom of paralysis are hardly likely to be noticed let alone reported and the UK form for reporting is for cases involving temporary or permanent paralysis and not non paralytic polio.

One thing you can say for sure about a death, is the patient is dead. And another is death is the most extreme consequence of a disease. A measure of how less dangerous a disease has become is from the rate at which mortality falls over time, so you can be certain all other kinds of adverse consequences will similarly be far less serious. But Gorski never tells you that nor that statistics on reported cases are wholly unreliable. That is not what Gorski or the US CDC want you to know or even guess at. The more tax dollars the CDC can spend on vaccines, the more certain they are of staying in a job. But then, they do have mortgages to pay don’t they, so we guess it must be OK to pay for them with your child’s health or the next child’s autism or asthma or diabetes [and so on and so forth].

All of the foregoing is why people don’t believe allopathic doctors like Gorski or government health officials and experts. Because one too many are deceiving you, misleading you and acting against your best health interests and those of your children. And if you want a great example, go over to Dr David Gorski’s various blog sites and read the nasty cranky stuff he writes, full of deceptions and misleading information.

Table of Contents

The following is not legal advice. It is merely sharing ideas, understandings and suggestions regarding ways of dealing with vaccine recommendations by the CDC and vaccine mandates by the STATE.

The “Refusal to Vaccinate” form was created by the American Academy of Pediatric’s ‘legal department’ as a response to the growing number of toxic vaccines recommended by them and the growing number of parents who are becoming educated on this issue. According to the CDC our children should now receive 37 doses of vaccine between 0-16 years. [See Vaccine Schedule]

Recently in the STATE OF CALIFORNIA a statute was implemented (AB 2109) that requires their own form filled out and submitted to get a vaccine exemption.

The following strategy now being used to overcome vaccine awareness is the most diabolical strategy possible! It is unlikely that physicians have any idea what they are asking their patients to sign . . . or to sign away. It is essentially a signed confession. So please read and understand why you can’t sign it and why it is really something other than what if appears to be.

Here are 12 reasons that no parent can sign this form unless they are interested in being statutorily charged with neglect or intentionally causing harm. Repeating more boldly:

This form, if signed, could be used to have your child(ren) removed from your custody!It is a form designed to stand up in court!

*TWELVE REASONS PARENTS CANNOT SIGN THIS FORM

#1The form attaches a child ID # that will be identifiable in the electronic records system across the country. Everyone from the school to the NSA will be able to determine who is and who is not vaccinated.#2The scientific term for HPV vaccine is listed to discourage parents from making the connection to the dangerous vaccine for HPV called Gardasil. [See Open Letter From a Grandmother to Her Daughters About Gardasil]#3Do not place any marks in any of these boxes. The physician’s records will indicate which vaccines your child has received. It would be best to put a large X through the entire section.#4The CDC Vaccine Information Statement is pure unadulterated propaganda. The real information about vaccines was exposed in 30 Years of Secret Official Transcripts Show UK Government Experts Cover Up Vaccine Hazards See info about the CDC – #9.#5Again the parent is misled to think the truth about vaccine risks is on the CDC web site.The doctor has the vaccine package inserts right in his/her office. Why is it not offered and explained to the parent? The physicians may have read them or not. However, the physicians are certainly aware that if the parents read the ‘official risks’ put out by the drug corporations, they would refuse the vaccines. Full disclosure is almost NEVER a part of the process.#6“I understand the following: The risks and benefits of the recommended vaccine(s).” This of course would be agreeing to a false statement. You cannot understand the risks without reading and understanding the package inserts.#7Parents are falsely told that without vaccines their children could suffer dire illnesses but are not told the dire illnesses/injuries the vaccines themselves could cause . . . including death. [See 30 Years of Secret Official Transcripts Show Government Experts Cover Up Vaccine Hazards]#8This refers to the “herd immunity myth” of 1933, which has been proven unscientific over and over and over again. Simply put: if other children have been vaccinated – and the vaccines work – they won’t contract a disease from your child.#9Entities are listed as “strongly recommending” the vaccine schedule. Again however, parents are NOT given full disclosure as to exactly who/what the entities are and what their motivations might be. Listed on the Refusal to Vaccinate form are the following:

The ‘physician’ – is rewarded for administering vaccines by higher reimbursements for his fees. His vaccine “rates” are checked to determine whether or not he/she is entitled to more money. Physicians, public health workers, and drug companies have all been given immunity from any possible lawsuits that may arise as a result of vaccine-caused injury or illness. In other words, if a vaccine harms your child or causes autism you cannot sue any of them.

The American Academy of Pediatrics which is a corporation headquartered in the STATE OF ILLINOIS – that receives lots of money from drug corporations for advertising in their Journal, etc. This organization relies heavily on what they believe to be a “government” health advocacy agency known as the Center for Disease Control (CDC).

The American Academy of Family Physicians which is a corporation headquartered in the STATE OF KANSAS – that also receives lots of money from drug corporations for advertising in their Journal, etc.This organization also relies heavily on what they believe to be a “government” health advocacy agency known as the Center for Disease Control (CDC).

Bottom line: all of the above “entities” make more money if they vaccinate our children and even more if our children get sick from the vaccines . . . including the pediatricians themselves.#10This is the broadest and most nefarious part of this so-called form.

Nevertheless, I have decided at this time to decline . . . I know that failure to follow the recommendations about vaccination may endanger the health or life of my child and others . . . I therefore agree to tell all health care professionals in all settings what vaccines my child has not received because he or she may need to be isolated or may require immediate medical evaluation and tests that might not be necessary if my child had been vaccinated.”

This is not only deceptive and untruthful [see numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8] it is asking you to confess that you know you are harming your child (and others) and don’t care. It is asking you to agree to inform any/all people who consider themselves to be healthcare “professionals” (not defined) of your child’s vaccination record. You are also agreeing to permitting undefined healthcare professionals to keep your child in isolation due to unproven or unknown exposure to a myriad of undefined communicable diseases – with or without testing.#11This is an admission that you understand this contractual document – and its significance – ‘in its entirety’. This means that you accept the false information sited as factual, chose NOT to do what you now know to be good for your child and others (are negligent), obligate yourself to embarrass and confuse your child by tracking and reporting on the vaccines you protected your child from, and give permission for your child to be tested or removed from your care and put in isolation for any ‘supposed’ exposure to any ‘undefined’ communicable disease by anyone calling themselves a healthcare worker. [Ohio Revised Code 3701.13]In short, the form wants you to attest to the following . . . in writing:

1. You understand you are signing a contract with performance requirements

2. You accept false information as factual and don’t care

3. You don’t care if your child or others are harmed by your decision

4. You agree to volunteer to all pretend healthcare workers your child’s vaccine record

5. You agree to allow others to test or isolate your child for unproven exposure to a disease

#12Here is the kicker. You are asked to sign, initial and date this document in front of a witness who also dated their signature. This is called an unconscionable adhesion contract: “a legally binding agreement between two parties to do a certain thing, in which one side has all the bargaining power and uses it to write the contract primarily to his or her advantage.”

Let’s think . . . how much money is made by forcing all children in America to be ‘fully’ vaccinated? Billions or is it trillions?

*For Californians

Note: only the child’s name is filled out and the form refers to an attached VACCINATION NOTICE (see below). The LEGISLATORS and employees of the STATE OF CALIFORNIA have absolutely no authority to require parents go to a health care provider. They are not qualified to make that determination and have absolutely no authority (or training) to establish those parameters

*SUGGESTED RESPONSE (OR WHAT I WOULD DO)

STEP ONE

Inform the nurse or doctor that as the Refusal to Vaccinate form is an adhesion contract with performance requirements, you must take it home and read it more thoroughly. No one can force you to sign a contract. It is very important that you don’t allow yourself to get bullied into signing this form on the spot.

Ask for the vaccine package inserts to take with you. Explain that you always get a list of side effects from the pharmacist when you pick up a prescription – before your take it. Say you need those inserts to make an informed decision. If they ask you to accept a ‘handout’ say no. Just politely repeat your request. If they still say no, just let it go.

On your next visit to the pediatrician or family practitioner, inform him or her that you are not interested in signing the Refusal to Vaccinate form because after due consideration you have decided that it would not be in your child’s best interests . . . which it would not!

STEP TWO

*THE VACCINATION NOTICE

It is time to place our position regarding vaccines on the record (and in the record) for the physician and the school system. The physician needs to have your notice regarding vaccines on file. This also protects him or her from the vaccination-business police (like public health employees) who monitor patient records.

This notice is designed to inform your doctor or your child’s school of the reasons you are opposed to their administering vaccines to your child and make it perfectly clear that you do not consent. The reasons listed on the notice are easy to validate. Suggestions for implementing this notice are on page 1 and the notice itself is on page 2. Read the notice thoroughly before you fill it out and present it. It has to be something you agree with and will attest to by signing it before 2 witnesses or a notary public. Without the witnesses or notary public it is nothing more than a memo, which will most likely be ignored. If you do not agree with the notice, do not use it. People can always create their own. A notice is only a signed statement of facts that you know to be true.

The concept of notice is critical to the integrity of legal proceedings. Due process requires that legal action cannot be taken against anyone unless the requirements of notice and an opportunity to be heard are observed.

This notice will stand irregardless of the myriad of vaccine mandates the untrained legislators decide to pass via statutes in the future. Be sure to keep a copy for your own records and note the date it was presented, and the party it was presented to!!

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE “NOTICE”The vaccination notice is designed to inform your doctor, hospital or school of the reasons you are opposed to their administering vaccines to your child and that you do not consent. See Noticehttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Notice The reasons listed on the notice are easy to validate. This approach should help put an end to the endless pressure that pediatricians and school personnel inflict on vaccine-aware parents.

FILLING OUT THE “NOTICE”

Items in red need to be personalized.

Select son or daughter as applicable.

Corporate entities need to be in all caps.

The health department of each state is listed in its corporate name in all caps on Dun and Bradstreet. This information is accessible for free online.

At the bottom of the notice is a space for the parent’s signature and the signature of two witnesses. Of course the dates need to be identical. An acceptable alternative to two witnesses would be to sign in front of a notary and have them stamp it for you. Use blue ink for signatures.

DELIVERING THE NOTICEThis notice requires little discussion. Just hand it to the nurse, doctor or clerk, or attach it to the Refusal to Vaccinate or the PERSONAL BELIEFS EXEMPTION TO REQUIRED IMMUNIZATIONS forms[1]. Politely explain that you are not comfortable with the vaccine risks and wish to have this notice placed in the child’s records so you don’t have to bring in a new one each time your child sees the doctor or nurse. If asked where you obtained the document, simply say from another parent, which is true. Giving more information is not required and is not advisable. Citing websites or vaccine aware organizations just motivates those in the vaccination-distribution-business to track down and discredit folks that are doing their best to bring good information to the public.

Do not answer detailed questions about your objections to any vaccine or the source of your information. Just repeat what is on the notice; “I am aware of multiple scientific peer-reviewed papers that have exposed the dangers of many vaccines.” Doctors and nurses are well armed with ‘talking points’ designed to overcome all claims you might make regarding vaccines and nearly all authors you might site. According to Russell Blaylock, MD there are lots of peer-reviewed articles on this topic for doctors and nurses to read. It is their job to seek this information. It is not your job to provide it to them. The notice just states facts and is designed to be self-explanatory.

Should the clerk, doctor, or nurse refuse to accept your notice, politely explain that their decision to accept your notice as the “agent” is not optional as it is directed to the “principal’ as well. Keep a copy for yourself and write the name of the agent, his/her position and the date on the bottom of your notice. Save the notice for your records. If there is too much resistance to placing the notice in your child’s records, send it certified mail to the physician, hospital administrator or superintendent of schools.

[1]The only info the parent should provide on these forms is name of the child and “see attached addendum”. (Sample) Anything more can be used against the parent AND the doctor, as these forms are designed to be tracked.

Having read almost all the replies here, I’d like to share my recent experience and what really peeves me off. For starters, I don’t care whether people vaccinate or don’t vaccinate, what I do care about is being deceived by the very person I am told to trust when it comes to the health of my children – my GP.

I asked my doctor and the health nurse at the same clinic “how safe are vaccinations?” They both told me “completely and totally safe”.

Now that’s a lie.

Even the pharmaceutical company that manufactures the vaccines don’t make that claim, and in fact, gives a list of what could happen.

Anyway, after several months of intense research I decided to delay the vaccinations in my 2 youngest children (I have 6) and have always been a bit unsure about them (my mother and father BOTH got polio FROM the polio vaccine in the 50′s). So I needed to get the doc to fill out a form stating I was objecting to it when the nurse started in on me. So I listened patiently about how completely safe they were etc etc, then I produced a document and told her that if she signed it I would vaccinate my children then and there, she refused. The document said that she would be fully financially liable if my children suffered from a vaccine induced injury and required care for the rest of their lives. When she refused, I asked why, because she had just told me they were completely safe. I then told her that if she had been honest with me and listed the pros and cons of the vaccine I would have gone ahead with it, not investigated the reasons why doctors and health professionals find it necessary to deceive their patients.

And for those of you who think doctors report serious adverse reactions, what a joke. I was given medication that very nearly led me to wipe out my entire family (no history of mental illness, violence, nothing) when I told the doctor she said “we can try another one”. Maybe she was unaware that the TGA had issued a warning and watch on this medication for suicide, rage and violence. A pity I had to do my own research to find this out. Also a pity that she didn’t report it, you’d think being locked up in your room for 2 days so you couldn’t harm your family would warrant reporting.

On another separate matter, my kids were injected with the rotavirus vaccine, I discovered that the TGA had issued warning to all doctors that after a few years of study it was found that it increased the risk of a bowel problem, and for doctors to inform every parent to watch their child for specific symptoms for a period of time after the 1st and 2nd injections. The people who vaccinated my children never mentioned a word, three different doctors no less, and according to my friends, they have never been informed either. I just find it completely unacceptable and the whole vaccination/medication process a hidden procedure, where being told the truth is like a game of hide and seek.

And finally, also not a vaccination, but drug, who in their right minds, makes a drug to be given to 6 year olds that causes suicidal thoughts and violent tendencies? Has the world gone mad??

It is claimed that on January 15, 2014, the Chile Congress approved nearly unanimously a law regulating the use of Thimerosal in vaccines (84 votes in favor [with 5 abstentions]). Bill #7036-11 eliminates mercury from most all vaccines was passed with cross party support: Chile: Congress Bans Mercury in Vaccines.

But there is a sting in this tale. President Sebastian Pinera must sign this new Bill into law but he vacates office in March to be replaced by Michelle Bachelet. Bachelet is a pediatrician and former public health and WHO associate. If the new Bill is not signed into law before April, will Bachelet, in support of “the people” and the overwhelming majority of the Chilean Congress: Ibid?

Biochemist Brian Hooker, scientific advisor to A Shot of Truth, reveals CDC knew of risks for over a decade.

We must ensure that this and other evidence of CDC malfeasance are presented to Congress and the public as quickly as possible. Time is of the essence. Children’s futures are at stake.

Charlotte, NC (PRWEB) February 19, 2014

For nearly ten years, Brian Hooker has been requesting documents that are kept under tight wraps by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). His more than 100 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests have resulted in copious evidence that the vaccine preservative Thimerosal, which is still used in the flu shot that is administered to pregnant women and infants, can cause autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders.

Dr. Hooker, a PhD scientist, worked with two members of Congress to craft the letter to the CDC that recently resulted in his obtaining long-awaited data from the CDC, the significance of which is historic. According to Hooker, the data on over 400,000 infants born between 1991 and 1997, which was analyzed by CDC epidemiologist Thomas Verstraeten, MD, “proves unequivocally that in 2000, CDC officials were informed internally of the very high risk of autism, non-organic sleep disorder and speech disorder associated with Thimerosal exposure.”

When the results of the Verstraeten study were first reported outside the CDC in 2005, there was no evidence that anyone but Dr. Verstraeten within the CDC had known of the very high 7.6-fold elevated relative risk of autism from exposure to Thimerosal during infancy. But now, clear evidence exists. A newly-acquired abstract from 1999 titled, “Increased risk of developmental neurologic impairment after high exposure to Thimerosal containing vaccine in first month of life” required the approval of top CDC officials prior to its presentation at the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) conference. Thimerosal, which is 50% mercury by weight, was used in most childhood vaccines and in the RhoGAM® shot for pregnant women prior to the early 2000s.

The CDC maintains there is “no relationship between Thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism rates in children,” even though the data from the CDC’s own Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) database shows a very high risk. There are a number of public records to back this up, including this Congressional Record from May 1, 2003. The CDC’s refusal to acknowledge thimerosal’s risks is exemplified by a leaked statement from Dr. Marie McCormick, chair of the CDC/NIH-sponsored Immunization Safety Review at IOM. Regarding vaccination, she said in 2001, “…we are not ever going to come down that it [autism] is a true side effect….” Also of note, the former director of the CDC, which purchases $4 billion worth of vaccines annually, is now president of Merck’s vaccine division.

Dr. Hooker’s fervent hope for the future: “We must ensure that this and other evidence of CDC malfeasance are presented to Congress and the public as quickly as possible. Time is of the essence. Children’s futures are at stake.” A divide within the autism community has led to some activists demanding that compensation to those with vaccine-injury claims be the top priority before Congress. Dr. Hooker maintains that prevention, “protecting our most precious resource – children’s minds,” must come first. “Our elected officials must be informed about government corruption that keeps doctors and patients in the dark about vaccine risks.”

Referring to an organization that has seen its share of controversy this past year, Dr. Hooker remarked, “It is unfortunate that SafeMinds issued a press release on my information, is accepting credit for my work and has not supported a worldwide ban on Thimerosal.”

Brian Hooker, PhD, PE, has 15 years experience in the field of bioengineering and is an associate professor at Simpson University where he specializes in biology and chemistry. His over 50 science and engineering papers have been published in internationally recognized, peer-reviewed journals. Dr. Hooker has a son, aged 16, who developed normally but then regressed into autism after receiving Thimerosal-containing vaccines.

Dr. Brian Hooker’s investigative research is sponsored by the Focus Autism Foundation.

The Focus Autism Foundation is dedicated to providing information to the public that exposes the cause or causes of the autism epidemic and the rise of chronic illnesses – focusing specifically on the role of vaccinations. To learn more, visit focusautisminc.org.

A Shot of Truth is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization and educational website sponsored by Focus Autism.

AutismOne is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization that provides education and supports advocacy efforts for children and families touched by an autism diagnosis. To learn more, visit autismone.org.

It is claimed that on January 15, 2014, the Chile Congress approved nearly unanimously a law regulating the use of Thimerosal in vaccines (84 votes in favor [with 5 abstentions]). Bill #7036-11 eliminates mercury from most all vaccines was passed with cross party support: Chile: Congress Bans Mercury in Vaccines.

But there is a sting in this tale. President Sebastian Pinera must sign this new Bill into law but he vacates office in March to be replaced by Michelle Bachelet. Bachelet is a pediatrician and former public health and WHO associate. If the new Bill is not signed into law before April, will Bachelet, in support of “the people” and the overwhelming majority of the Chilean Congress: Ibid?

Abstract:Over the past 35 years, patients have suffered from a largely hidden epidemic of side effects from drugs that usually have few offsetting benefits.

The pharmaceutical industry has corrupted the practice of medicine through its influence over what drugs are developed, how they are tested, and how medical knowledge is created.

Since 1906, heavy commercial influence has compromised Congressional legislation to protect the public from unsafe drugs.

The authorization of user fees in 1992 has turned drug companies into the FDA’s prime clients, deepening the regulatory and cultural capture of the agency.

Industry has demanded shorter average review times and, with less time to thoroughly review evidence, increased hospitalizations and deaths have resulted.

Meeting the needs of the drug companies has taken priority over meeting the needs of patients.

Unless this corruption of regulatory intent is reversed, the situation will continue to deteriorate. We offer practical suggestions including: separating the funding of clinical trials from their conduct, analysis, and publication: independent FDA leadership; full public funding for all FDA activities; measures to discourage R&D on drugs with few if any new clinical benefits; and the creation of a National Drug Safety Board.